After the talks: "Would you kindly explain where the continuity is?"

Background: On Christmas Day, 2011, Father Giovanni Cavalcoli, a respected theologian and a Friar Preacher in the Convent of Saint Dominic in Bologna - where the Founder himself is buried - authored an open letter to Italian traditional Catholic journal Sì Sì No No, dealing with matters central to the ongoing debate on the Second Vatican Council, its interpretation, the so-called hermeneutics of reform in continuity and in rupture, and the degrees of obedience owed to different teachings of the Church and to the words of our most Holy and Apostolic Father, the Bishop of Rome and universal Pastor. Rorate published a translation of this letter earlier this week. Unsurprisingly, all these matters are at the very heart of the current debate between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), following the doctrinal talks held between 2009 and 2011.

We publish below the response of the Sì Sì No No editorial team to the letter, part of the ongoing discussion. (Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana)

________________________________________

January 3, 2012

Reverend Father Giovanni Cavalcoli,

We gladly respond to your letter sent to us at Christmas.

The Second Vatican Council did not want “to define and bind belief” (Cfr. Vatican Council I. DB 1800) (1) and so it did not want to impose infallibility, thus it can be fallible. The Church is indefectible and God does not permit errors in Her dogmatic or infallibly assisted teachings. (2)

The Church as subject is always one; She is and will always be “pillar and sustainer of the Truth ”, even if the object or doctrine taught by Her may be multiple regarding “the way” and the “substance”. Now the Second Vatican Council is “pastoral” (as Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI said explicitly (3)unlike certain theologians who are not part of the teaching Church and instead, have dogmatized it). So the doctrine of Vatican II is different regarding “the way” of the other XX Councils preceding it and in some cases it even deviates from “the substance”.

We believe in the indefectibility of the Church as subject and also in the infallibility of the doctrine taught by Her, but according to the conditions set out by the First Vatican Council, not those set out by theologians. Now, the will to define a doctrine as divine revelation and to bind the faithful to believe in it by Faith for their eternal salvation, is taught infallibly by the First Vatican Council (DB,1800).

When the Church teaches the truths of the Faith, the Subject teacher and the Object taught are divinely and infallibly assisted. On this we have never had any doubt. As you have written rightly in your letter “the object of Faith taught is the rule of the Church as subject”. Therefore, the Magisterium is not an Absolute and must transmit the doctrine revealed by God, without changing it. Revelation is the rule of the Magisterium. Whereas, you Reverend Father, tend to make even the non-infallibly assisted Magisterium an Absolute, independent from the Faith.

A few lines further on, when you write that “denying the infallibility of the Magisterium goes against the Faith and therefore is heretical”, you contradict what you have written previously (which we have just cited) and does not complete the definition of the infallible Magisterium. According to the First Vatican Council in the will to define and bind belief it is necessary for the infallible assistance on the part of God to the Magisterium in (DB,1800). In some matters, you tend in good faith, to substitute yourself for the Magisterium and excommunicate and declare heretical, right, left and centre, promulgating new dogmatic definitions which deviate from those of the Church.

Christ did not deceive the Church when He promised to assist Her “until the end of the world”, but there are different types of assistance and not all of them are infallible.

Some doctrines of the Second Vatican Council seem to be erroneous to us, but it is up to the teaching authority of the Church to have the last word on them, not us, nor you for that matter.

Finally, you write: “it is absolutely indemonstrable that there is no continuity”.

Would you kindly explain – without denying the principle of non-contradiction – where the continuity is between the Catholic Faith and the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in the following four points:

Gaudium et spesno.12: “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.” This extract could be interpreted in an orthodox manner, if all inanimate things, plants and animals were ordered to man and man to God, butGaudium et spesno.24specifies that: “man is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself,” (propter seipsam). This error must be read in the light of the pan- Christianism (of Teilhard de Chardin) and of Gaudium et spesno.22 “For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.” Note well: every man, not all of human nature.

On the 7th December 1965 during his address at the9th session of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI came to proclaim: “the religion of God Who became man has met the religion (for that is what it is) of man who makes himself God. What happened? A clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. […]A feeling of boundless sympathy (for every man not for human nature) has permeated the whole of it. (…) But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.” (4) Note well! Pope Paul VI says “all of the Council” not only the ‘spirit of the Council’, not only the radical hermeneutic of rupture with Catholic Tradition. Now here, the authentic interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is given by Pope Paul VI and not Tizio, Caio, Sempronio nor Don Cantone (equivalent of: Tom, Dick or Harry), nor myself. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI urges the “modern humanists” that is, the atheists, who “reject the truths” of supernatural Faith, which transcend human reason “ to give credit” to “all of the Council” for this “religion of man that makes himself God” on his own strength without the free gift of sanctifying grace. But if “all of the Council”, and not its hazardous interpretation or its “spirit” can and must please the atheist or pantheists, it cannot please the Christians, who believe in the supernatural truths revealed by God which distinguish the creature from the Creator. As we can deduce from what Pope Paul VI said, it is the text itself of the Council which is in rupture with the Catholic Faith and as such cannot be accepted. The heart of the “problem at the present time” is really the foolish hope of reconciling the irreconcilable: theocentrism and anthropocentrism. The Roman–Rite Mass and the “Novus Ordo Missae”, Divine-Apostolic Tradition and Vatican II.

In 1976,Cardinal Karol Wojtyla while preaching on a spiritual retreat to Pope Paul VI and his collaborators (published in Italian under the title Segno di contradizione. Meditazioni, (Milano Gribaudi, 1977) initiates the meditation with: “Christ reveals man fully to himself” (Chap. XII pp. 114 -112)and withGaudium et spesno.22asserts: “the conciliar text, applying itself to the category of the mystery of man, explains the anthropological character or even the anthropocentricity of Revelation offered to men in Christ. This Revelation is concentrated on man […] The Son of God, through His Incarnation, has united Himself to every man, and became – as Man – one of us. […] Here are the central points on which we could reduce the Council’s teaching regarding man and his mystery” (pp. 115-116). In short, this is the concentrated essence of the texts of the Second Vatican Council: the cult of man, pantheismand anthropological idolatry. It is not I that is saying this, but Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, in the light of Pope Paul VI and the pastoral Council concluded by him, that is, the “authentic” interpreters of Vatican II. Cardinal Wojtyla speaks of man and not of human nature.

Pope John Paul II affirms in his first encyclical (1979) ‘Redemptor hominis’no.9 : “God, who in Him (Christ) draws near again to humanity, to each human being, giving him the thrice holy ‘Spirit of truth’.” Andagain in‘Redemptor hominis’no.11: “the dignity that each human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of both the grace of divine adoption and the inner truth of humanity.” Still in ‘Redemptor hominis’no.13: “We are not dealing with the "abstract" man, but the real, "concrete", "historical" man. We are dealing with "each" man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever […] Man, without any exceptions – has been redeemed by Christ, because – without any exceptions – Christ is in someway united with man even when man is not aware of it. (…) the mystery (of Redemption) in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother.” In his second encyclical (1980) ‘Dives in misericordia’no.1 PopeJohn Paul II affirms: “While the various currents of human thought both in the past and at the present have tended and still tend to separate theocentrism and anthropocentrism, and even to set them in opposition to each other, the Church [conciliar,ndr) […]seeks to link them up […] in a deep and organic way. And this is also one of the basic principles, perhaps the most important one, of the teaching of the last Council.” In his third encyclical ‘Dominum et vivificantem’ (1986) in no.50, Pope John Paul II writes: “‘The Word became flesh.’ The Incarnation of God the Son signifies the taking up into unity with God not only of human nature, but in this human nature, in a sense, of everything that is "flesh": the whole of humanity, the entire visible and material world. The Incarnation, then, also has a cosmic significance, a cosmic dimension. The "first-born of all creation, becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in some way with the entire reality of man, which is also "flesh" -and in this reality with all "flesh," with the whole of creation.”

Everything that is written in this reply has been explained with precise Magisterial quotations in ‘Si si no no’, so as not make this reply too cumbersome, we , therefore refer the reader to our articles.

1) In a sense Christ did unite himself to all creation - and that includes every man. By taking flesh, the incorporeal divinity became corporeal - of the same 'matter' as His creation. By this mere fact He gave His creation an immeasurable dignity. "Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto ALL MEN to justification of life." Romans 5, 18

2) Anthropocentrism in itself is not evil... what is the greatest good of Anthropos (man)? and why should he be the centre? Well the greatest good of man is the salvation of his soul THAT is WHY he must be the CENTRE (which in no way excludes God). It is the Will of God that MAN be saved... THAT IS the very reason for the Incarnation!

3) ALL of CREATION (animate and inanimate) Romans 8: "For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God... Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, " NOTE in Douay-Rheims: "The expectation of the creature: He speaks of the corporeal creation,.."

Finally, at the end of time A NEW HEAVEN and a New EARTH will be recreated a PERFECT creation... Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, Et vitam ventúri sæculi.

Gaudium et spes no.12: “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.”

"Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory, and honour, and power: because thou hast created all things; and for thy will they were, and have been created." Revelation 4:11

"[T]he Liturgy which systematically boycotted the versus Domino orientation, the sacredness of the rite, the sense of latria, the irreplaceable beauty of Gregorian chant, the solemnity of gestures and vestments, and kneeling...[was committed in a] boundless cult of man..." ..."I have already made mention of this anthropocentrism in the Constitution GS, a concern which Vatican II manifests in general through its dedication to man. It is a concern steeped in naivete and, I would say, in irrational kindness; it is based upon the dignity of the human person and the exaltation of his freedom through predominantly naturalistic premises. As a consequence, devastatingly little is said about the due distinction between the ontological and moral in man. This can be seen in n.22. In this passage there is not only the devastation of naive, ecumenical nature which is absurd and unsustainable, but one of unprecedented gravity precisely because it wishes to unite its own absurd thought to Christ Himself...That this reveals an absurdity (that of confusing the natural with the supernatural, which throws all to the cards on the table regarding the anthropocentric conception of the Council) is clearly understood in the events after the Council; notwithstanding, if there is a more ridiculous absurdity it is the following: 'All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.' (n.22). This text seems to open itself decisively to syncretism..."..."...not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism--this can be seen above all in GS." ..."...there is neither continuity nor development of the previous Magisterium in DH." --Msgr. Gherardini

This renown theologian doesn't mince words; not only was the Council an utter failure, but it may contain heresy (as Modernism, of which sycretism is a component, is the mother of all heresies).

Alexander VIII condemned the proposition that Christ did not die for all men. As He died for all, he has some connection to all. Further reading Pope John Paul II' s 1st encyclical points out that the Church is calling all men to reply to the call of Christ. I believe that Si Si No No has read into the Pope and the Council. What we have here is eisegesis rather than exegesis.

"The Second Vatican Council did not want to define and bind belief (Cfr Vatican Council 1. DB 1800) (1) and so it did not want to impose infallibility, thus it can be fallible."

Question: when the above quote says..."and so it did not want to impose infallibility, thus it can be fallible," is this the opinion of the SSPX? Or has this been declared also by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, or the pope?

In other words, has the pope or the Church declared that the Council is fallible?

Yes, how about a straight answer: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." [John 1:14] and note the many New Covenant Apostolic convictions: "For 'who has known the mind of the Lord, that he might instruct him?' But we have the mind of Christ." [1st Corinthians 2:16]

SSPX scholarship has symptoms of 'planned forgetfulness'. Some of us deal with this constantly with our Protestant borthers.

I can see the difference. Christ united with us in a manner when he took on His human nature, and that commonality is a sharing of general human experiences. I'm not a theologian, but I cannot see how one would stretch that unity into a uniting of God with each human being individually. Each human being in a state of grace or maybe in Holy Communion, perhaps, but that is not every human being.

It's going to take a lot to refute these views, but you just know we're going to get indignation yet again for an answer.

"but Gaudium et spes no.24 specifies that: “man is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself,”"

Does the SSPX think this is an error? Man was certainly not willed for any other creature on earth, nor was he willed for the benefit of God (God does not need us), so it follows that man was willed for his own sake.

"In other words, has the pope or the Church declared that the Council is fallible?"

Paul VI made the necessary statements:

"Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's

(Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm)

Paul VI also stated a year later:

" There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification , the council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council , it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner and dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

General Audience , December 1, 1966 published in L'Oservatore Romano 1/21/1966

“man is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself" ...is manifestly absurd and incompatible with the very notion of a divine creation out of nothing, which is a dogma of the Faith. It contains a patent theological error, since God has created all things, as it has always been taught, for Himself, for His own glory, and not because of some value that His creation would possess intrinsically and thus independently of the God who created it...Indeed, if man has been created for himself, why should he not act in accord with his own nature and make himself autonomous, determining for himself what is good and what is evil? (SOURCE)

What a disappointing reply! The Vatican is about to approve a Neocat liturgy whose core is a denial of two fundamental doctrines: the sacrificial character of the Mass, and transubstantiation. The Neocats explicitly cite Luther as their inspiration. There are many other equally explosive examples of discontinuity, and this is what the authors of the reply have chosen? To a theologically unschooled individual like myself, it is akin to complaining about your assassin's bad breath as he hacks you to death with a machete.

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

Thanks, Tradical. The above quote was made by Pope Paul Vl in 1964, but he didn't close the Council until Dec. 8, 1965. I'll assume that the quote was meant to represent context according present tense, rather than past tense, as it was intially written at the time.

Also, the above quote of Paul Vl describes that the Council did not proclaim dogmas carrying the mark of infallibilty, but he does not mention doctrine here. Doctrine is not necessary dogma, of course. And how often do Councils of the Church actually issue dogmas, anyway? Probably not all that often (dogmas, of course, always being infallible).

Tradical, I should mention, too, that in your quotes provided regarding the Council not wanting to proclaim infallible dogmas, I cannot see this as being supportive the SSPX idea that the Council ITSELF was fallible, or possibly fallible. There's a marked difference between the two things IMO.

but that is not enough. Those quotes only show that the extraordinary Magisterium and it´s infallibility is not invoked.

But the opponents might argue:But it is the ordinary and universal Magisterium and therefore infallible.

Well, there are other utterances during and after the Council of the Popes and bishops that make it clear that it is not the ordinray universal Mag. speaking here with his highest authority and thus infallible - but we would have to quote them.

But I am busy and tired ... tired of the whole discussion re infallibility ...

Perhaps the admission of the Anglicans and Kikos was intended to show the SSPX that the Church is to be considered a big tent in which all are welcome to participate.

V2 was a pastoral council so one can critizise it after admitting it did take place. All thefine theological points raised pale in comparison with the reality of being inside the One Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The SSPX is being welcomed in, all it needs to do is agree to the Preamble. In they turn down this opportunity the right side of the Church smorgasbord will be very weak. If Tradition were not split, we could help steer the rest of the Church in a better direction. This battle will be won by offering the TLM throughout the world, as the SSPX, FSSP ICK and, increasingly, good Diocesan priests are doing. Submit to Benedict XVI, I pray.

Enoch,Obviously you missed the date on the second quote. Last time I checked Dec 1, 1966 is after Dec 8, 1965

"but he does not mention doctrine here." Truly, this response caused a cultural dissonance in my mind.

For doctrine to be recognized as infallible it has to be declared as such otherwise you don't know what you need to believe (de fide). They didn't 'dogmatically' define any doctrine. Ergo the declaration made by Pope Paul VI is valid.

Picard,Ordinary and Universal Magisterium doesn't apply in the normal sense here. The bishops were in a council which is normally an act of the Extra-Ordinary Magisterium, but not invoking that power the council in the novel items is fallible.

It is a little more involved, something to do with 'Bishops in their dioceses', but I haven't the time to look it up in Ott right now.

Here's a pertinent quote from Archbishop Lefebvre:

“Not necessarily. A non-dogmatic, pastoral council is not a recipe for infallibility. When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, “Can you not give us what the theologians call the “theological note of the Council?”” he replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”, p. 107)

the text of "si si no no" is in two directions a good one - but in one respect I would also critisize it.

The good points:

- (i) they give a short but sufficent answer re the accusation of beeing protestant because of beeing critical to the magisterium:

NOT all the magisterium is teaching is infallible, there are different levels of teaching authority. PERIOD!

-(ii) The next good one: they point to the dangerouse anthropocentrical humanism.

But

- (iii) here is my critique: re this anthropocentrism (and esp. GS) we can not accuse the Vat. II of direct error (or heresy) but only of ambiguity (and beeing captiouse):

because,as Peter rightly remarks,

most (all?!) of the sentences can be read in an orthodox way (also the sentence that "man is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself"can be understood in an orthodox way!!Perhaps even that God is especially connected to every man through incarnation and redemption..)

So they are only ambiguous, not wrong!

But this does not change what I said in (ii): This ambiguities are captious, dangerouse ones.

So "si si no no" as well as Knight of Malta or Mgr. Gherardini, who is quoted by him, rightly critisize GS here.

I too am a little tired of the 'infallible' argument. However, I find the discussion useful because I've run into these same arguments several times in discussions with Catholics who argue that V2 was infallible ergo the Novus Ordo, Ecumenism, kissing the koran etc is ok.

What the Fathers are trying to politely say, by referring to the words of John Paul II, is that he believed and taught the heresy of universal salvation. This is well known in SSPX circles (I am not sure for the rest of the traditionalist world). Here are three very direct quotes:

"The redemption event brings salvation to all, "for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery."(John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio)

"The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal. This is the covenant which embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all."(John Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985)

"… Jesus makes us, in Himself, once more sons of His Eternal Father. He obtains, once and for all, the salvation of man: of each man and of all…"(John Paul II, Homily, April 27, 1980)

One more interesting note, concerning the translation of the words of Paul VI from his general audience mentioned in the article.The translator has obviously taken the official English translation from the Vatican site:"we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind."

The Latin word "cultor" is translated in two ways - one as supporter/follower and the other as worshipper - in this way it is used when referring to worshippers of pagan deities.

Si si no no also reckognized this, for in the original Italian version of their letter their words, quoting the official Enchiridion Vaticanum (ed. 1971), were:"anche noi, più di tutti, abbiamo il culto dell’uomo""We too, more than others, have the cult of man"

This is why the quote was chosen by Si Si No No, to emphasize these clear words of Paul VI (after which they wrote "Warning!") that the Conciliar Church is the cult of man.

Bishop Fellay said many years ago that the novus ordo church was nothing but a big zoo with many cages - something for everyone. He didn't want the SSPX to be another inhabitant of one of their cages in the zoo.

Yes, Jordanes, you are right - but also the articel of "si si no no" admits that this can be read in a orthodox way.

But, and that is also my critique, the other sentence they accuse of error thatman is the only creature on earth which is willed ... for itselfe

can also be read in an totally orthodox way.

Well, with all the modern context we can perhaps speak of captious ambiguity - - but not of direct and clear error. (Ok., perhaps in the whole context, we are allowed to speak even of error - but the sentences themselfe are not - materialiter/per se - errors.)

Just saw "... I cannot see this as being supportive the SSPX idea that the Council ITSELF was fallible ..."

The Council's objective is to teach. If it did not invoke the power of infallibility in its teaching (ie documents declarations etc) by definition is is not-infallible. Removing the (which cancels the in) you have fallible.

Oh, sorry, you meant Opera... Well, it really does look OK in Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome (the browser in which I usually view and edit it), as well as in Safari. I really do not know what the problem in Opera might be.

"What the Fathers are trying to politely say, by referring to the words of John Paul II, is that he believed and taught the heresy of universal salvation. This is well known in SSPX circles (I am not sure for the rest of the traditionalist world). Here are three very direct quotes:

1)"The redemption event brings salvation to all, "for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery." (John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio)

Well the REDEMPTION DOES BRING salvation TO ALL but NOT ALL will accept that Gift of Redemption! ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!

2) "The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal. This is the covenant which embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all." (John Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985)

THAT is TRUE as well! The Blood of Christ does save ALL for Christ did die FOR ALL to save ALL BUT this Salvation becomes efficacious only for the MANY... AGAIN no heresy here!

3) "… Jesus makes us, in Himself, once more sons of His Eternal Father. He obtains, once and for all, the salvation of man: of each man and of all…"(John Paul II, Homily, April 27, 1980)

Again nothing false. Jesus does make US (Christians)in Himself, once more sons of His Eternal Father. Furthermore, Christ "obtains, once and for all, the salvation of man: of each man and of all…" for Christ's sacrifice did bring Salvation to ALL but that Universal Salvation offered and obtained has to be appropriated to be effective.

If you want to nitpick you can make the VERY WORD OF GOD (let alone the writings of a man) teach heresy - heretics have always done that!

THAT Said Vatican II did NOT add ANYTHING to the Catholic Faith to which we must adhere... Would Rome insist that The Orthodox adhere to Vatican II for a restoration of communion? Don't think so!

Hope the SSPX stops cursing the darkness and bring in the light... stop bemoning the disease and bring the cure...

The time has come for the regularization of the SSPX and other traditionalist orders and priests! As long as the SSPX is offered freedom to operate (without being derailed by local bishops) then I see no reason for any refusal or delay in restoring EXPLICIT Communion with the See of Peter.

"Gaudium et spes no.12: 'all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.'

With this St. Paul agrees in Hebrews 2:5-15."

At first blush this appears to be correct.

Hebrews 2:8 reads: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his ["man's"] feet. For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing not subject to him. But now we see not as yet all things subject to him.

However, Haydock's commentary has this to say regarding this verse:

He speaks here of Christ, to whom God hath made all creatures subject, whether in heaven, earth, or hell; whether they have been, or shall be hereafter, as to the judge and the head of all. --- But now we see not as yet all things subject to him. This will only be at the end of the world. At present the devils and the wicked make opposition against Christ and his elect. (Robert Witham, President of the University of Douai)Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

But what is St. Paul referring to when he says "man"?

I think the Jury is in re: Hebrews 2:8; is Paul referring to man in general, or, in the opinion of Witham Christ?

Personally, I think the latter, since Christ is God, and all things are ordered to God.

Tradical, getting back to my original assertion, I am not aware that Pope Benedict XVl (or any other pope) has stated that the Council itself was fallible. If indeed it was fallible, then a pope should not have any problem stating as such. Can you cite a credible source in which a pope states that the Council was fallible?

I don't understand why the SSPX would not accept a canonical structure if these are the critical issues preventing regularization. These are important theological issues but the discussions can and should take place within the Church.

Well put simply because they fear (quite rightly) that once 'in' i.e in the normal structure of the church, the talks will never take place and that they will be in a weaker position. Put simply until Rome renounces these errors there is no benefit in them joining the normal structure of the Church. On the contrary there is great danger in the risk of being exposed to heterodoxy and having their effectiveness weakened by the bishops and roman curia.

The scandals of Assisi 1-3, ecumenicism, the NO, communion in the hand, the heterodox movements which are given a blind eye or approved by Rome, the scandals given by bishops and even cardinals, are but part of a long list of reasons the Society wants certain assurances before entering the normal structure of the Church.

JPII clearly did believe in universal (or nearly universal) salvation. He wrote in On The Threshold of Hope that it cannot be said with certainty that anyone is in Hell, not even Judas. Since Our Lord said after Judas' death that it would have been better for him had he never been born, I've often wondered how one so religiously well educated could believe such a clear error. He wrote that before he became pope, but it fits with his later statements to indicate his belief really was in universal salvation.

As with the man-centered discussion, although it is possible to do so, it seems you have to jump through hoops to avoid SSPX's conclusions, and so their main point seems valid to me - either make your point more clearly or stop making statements which sound heretical at face value.

Man cannot be an absolute end, but he could be a proximate end. Man is made to "know love and serve God in this life and be eternally happy with God in the next." Therefore man is made for beatitude, happiness. But happiness is a kind of end. Therefore, being made for his own happiness, man is made for himself. HOWEVER, we know that God chose to create precisely for his own glory, by showing forth his goodness and sharing that goodness. Man's beatitude is thus a (created) reception of the gift of a share in God's goodness. Thus man is made for man precisely in the sense of his being a proximate end that shows forth God's goodness, and in doing this give God glory.

In other words God created for the purpose of his own external glory. God's glory shines forth in his diffusion of his own goodness. Making man for his own beatitude is a gratuitous diffusion of goodness. Thus, in creating man for his own beatitude is a greater glory unto God.

Man is made for himself insofar as being "for himself" gives greater glory to God. In this way, we see that man is only a proximate end, whereas God's glory still remains the final end of man and all the rest of creation. Thus Holy Writ is not contradicted, "The Lord hath made all things for himself" (Proverbs 16:4).

John Paul II is quoted as writing "The redemption event brings salvation to all, for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery." In a comment, Peter describes this as "absolutely true" (in capital letters). Am I to understand this as meaning there are (and will be) no people in hell? Or as meaning that Christ is united *forever* to those people?

I don't see what the problem is supposed to be with the _Gaudium et Spes_ quotation. Saying that God willed man's existence for man's own sake is consistent with saying that God willed man's existence for God's own glory. God can act for multiple ends.

Cavalcoli simply does not understand the basic elements of dogmatic theology, i.e., degrees of certitude and levels of assent. And the people of "Si si no no" use that childish methodology of taking an isolated phrase of CVII, interpreting it in the most anti-catholic way possible, and throwing a few quotes to back it up... neither side is up to the task.

"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave her....But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading authority in order to elude their directives and judgments, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ Himself as the cornerstone."

On the question of infallibility in Vatican II, you might want to see what Msgr. Gherardini has to say at:www.centreleonardboyle.com/PastoralCVII.html (English translation). The Italian text is available at:www.centreleonardboyle.com/Gherardinionline.html.

So the Pope is speaking of other kind of subject of infalibility: that of the "magisterium authenticum". So is not a question so easy just as say: there is no definition so there is no infalibility. The magisterium authenticum is subject of infalibility in the common doctrine yet before the Council in the universal teaching to the Church with the Pope.

The core of the problem here is what the Pope says:

"e così palesemente autentico"

"and so obviously athenticum"

(I put "authenticum" in latin and not "true" for make it clear the technical word)

There the answer of Gleize, Gherardini and others is that is no so obviously in some points. So its on the hand of the Holy See make it obvius in the terms that the common doctrine give to the magisterium authenticum. One of that terms was that magistehrium authenticum is "traditional": That is: has an obligation of explain the deppositum fidei without add anything to it.

Beside if you read that audiencie (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html) you will see that the hermeneutic of continuity is an old matter. As old as the end of the council, so Benedict XVI was not the first of speaking in that wat. For the very first time the council ended was neccesary an hermeneutic to "intelligere" (intus - legere read inside) the Council text and solve the "obvius" problem: "it was not so obvoiusly and act of true magisterium". Pope itself speaks of «novità» in that audience.

The answer of the faithful wich faith is "quaerens intellectum" is to ask "How could we do that, is not possible in theese...?" You can apport the light of the bad fruits, but that is secondary to the core question: the act of magisterium itself seems not true.

So well see how it will fit, as it is consistent, and how to bring this testimony, growth, explanation and application.

Time after time from the end of the Council, the Holy See denys to enter the question and solve it with authority and only repeat the statement just as Paulus VI did. I think all this controversial is the same thing time after time. The gift of the Fraternity is that makes clear that the question needs a "definitive" solution.

Christ did DIE for all objectively so that all may be SAVED but not all are saved. The superabundant and infinite merits of his life, passion and death can be applied to all od humanity an infinite number of times and thus save all men an infinite number of times but not all were saved automatically when He died.

If Christ saved all then all are saved, but not all are saved therefore Christ did not save all.

He opened the door of Heaven for every man but not every man hanging of the cliff will reach for Christs hand and surrender himself to be transferred trough that door.

It seems to me that the main "offence" of the SSPX is that they refuse to suspend their reason. Today's conservative Catholis talk a lot about the magisterium, but they are really just referring to what Popes have taught since Vatican II. When they talk about obedience, what they are really saying is that if teaching Y clearly contradicts teaching X, and they have both been taught by popes, we should go with what the current pontiff holds and pretend that the contradictory teaching never existed. TheSSPX's"sin"is that they will insist on drawing attention to the inconsistencies. This is a nuisance for the conservatives who can't face the reality of the situation. We have to think of today's hierarchy in terms of a totalitarian state desperate to keep the ideology intact. Voices of dissent must be crushed at all costs. Think of those members of the Politburo in the old Soviet Union who held the part line up to the last possible minute...

I am again nonplussed. The first part is a formidable and poignant rebuttal to the strange hyperbolism of Fr. Giovanni.

However, the second part, wishing to show the discontinuity between traditional teaching and Gaudium et spes is wide off the mark. For one thing, they don't demonstrate clearly what the traditional teaching is. Secondly, they in no way convincingly show that the - albeit novel - attempt of the council to create an anthropocentric theology that is also at the same time theocentric (as is the interpretation of Paul VI and John Paul II) is contrary to the Faith.

And that is the whole crux of the matter: the Council may say some things that sound heterodox - but if the Magisterium gives an (authoritative) interpretation that is consistent with traditional teaching, may we not accept the council in the light of this interpretation (even if we may still argue that it ought to have been phrased differently)?

St. Thomas in the ST II-II (Treatise on Justice) is quite clear in applying the word "cultus" for man's honoring God, but also man's honoring other men as in the virtues of piety and obseranve. So the word cultus itself bears no greater weight than honor when applied to men when read in light of its traditional usage...

Man is the center of creation when god is klving in him by grace (inhabitation of Holy Trinity otherwise he is a creature. And in that ordo man is below the angel in the creation but crown with glory and dignity. The material creation is for him and he has to finish it, but is not the center.

The saved man become the center only by the inhabitation and grace which give him the capacity he has not to finish the creation after the fall. As a mark in the creation, the sacramental character remains to remember that this relation between God and man is real and not only in mind. Even the sinner has not the supranatura, but conserves the mark. No problem with that.

New Theology and Anthropological inversion forgot the historic fall and try to consider every human being as it was the center before the fall and just the center after been created. The Redemption is absolute and begins yet with the creation. This is the aftermath of the not condemend scholastic position that says that God would be incarnate even if man would not sin and fall (St. Anselmus). The jump here is the magnification of the anthropocentric wiew in coordination with modern inmanentism and subjectivism and very far from the dogma in its logics conclusions that we see everyday.

There is a wholesale rupture liturgically - the pastoral one has logically followed since it is the Holy Mass that nourishes The Faith and what we believe. Objectively speaking, therefore, and demonstarted by church reports, most new age catholics have non-Catholic norms and values. Being fed by the stones and snakes of fabricated liturgical experience is sufficient to destroy most people's Catholic faith.

"But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading authority in order to elude their directives and judgments, then about which Church do these men mean to speak?..."

Indeed. ...and if today these workers of iniquity ARE shepherds of the Church....?

There were many VERY bad Popes (and bishops) in history - as Peter who denied Christ not once, twice but THREE times and later on showed favor to the Judaisers - (not forgetting Alexander VI among others) but that does not give any Catholic the right to break communion with the head of the Church on earth. You do that you break communion with Christ Himself.

We owe the Papa at least the same obedience and respect we owe our own Papa and Mama... as long as he does not command us to do something contrary to the divine law and faith then we cannot refuse him or show a lack of respect towards him.... look at some of your traditional prayers for Mother and Father and see what they teach.

A clear definition between 'authentic' ergo fallible (or as some would prefer to say non-infallible) and Ordinary-Universal (infallible) Magisterium.

It would be very helpful if accompanying this would be an listing of what is Ordinary-Universal, Prior Infallible, and Authentic and clarification of ambiguous statements in V2.

However, as my wife commented, in order to determine which Bishops are truly in union with the Pope - the fulfillment of Our Lady's request for the Consecration of Russia would be a full step. Then the Pope will know the Sheep from the Goats and could call a Council (with an emphasis on Infallible definitions) or make an Ex Cathedra statement.

"if teaching Y clearly contradicts teaching X, and they have both been taught by popes, we should go with what the current pontiff holds and pretend that the contradictory teaching never existed. TheSSPX's"sin"is that they will insist on drawing attention to the inconsistencies. This is a nuisance for the conservatives who can't face the reality of the situation."

And it gets doubly problematic when you are trying to defend church teaching on gender and sex, but liberals rightly point out the flip flops coming from V2. Can new doctrine contradict old with such blithe explanations? If so, let's bless the gays and ordain the women please. I can think of all sorts of Vatican 2 type wordplays to justify both!

It seems to me that a major issue here is that the Church is trying to adopt the language of the secular humanists and other infidels. We know that all goodness is ultimately derived from God. Therefore, the final end of desire is in some sense toward God, the ultimate Good. Even evil is only desired as a good (a good thing is desired in a disordered way).

One of the major ambiguity-generating projects of Vatican II, as I see it, is as follows. 1. Confidence that all people ultimately desire God. 2. Therefore the infidel modern world is seeking a good (in a disordered way) which can ultimately be only fulfilled in God and his Church. 3. There is a confidence that if we frame the truth about God and about his Church in humanistic language, then the humanists (et al.) will see that what the Church is offering is really the fulfillment of what they desire. 4. The expectation is then that in seeing that the Church offers the authentic good (which the humanists had been seeking in a disordered way), the humanists will then abandoned their disordered quest, and embrace the truth of the Church.

Thus, I see the Church not attempting to adopt humanism, but rather attempting to translate, unchanged, her doctrine into a language that will meet the humanists where they are at and lead them to the fullness of the Faith.

(i.e. The secular humanists see man as the final end of all things. The Church actually has a much more exalted understanding of man's vocation (in light of Christ and his grace; Even on the level of nature, the Church has a higher opinion insofar as the redemption was foreknown to God at Creation and Christ was the exemplary cause of all things). The Church then starts presenting her Faith as being about the sublimity of man's vocation. This is done in hopes that seeing that the Church has a sublime understanding of man's vocation, the humanists will abandon their errors and realize that what they had sought in the darkness of their faltering reason, is found pre-eminently in the light of Faith.)

It is no wonder, then, that we see different elements of the Faith emphasized in this approach and other elements de-emphasized. If we want the humanist to see that the Church does not have a low opinion of man, then we would talk about human nature, mostly in light of God's original plan before the Fall. We would emphasize the Glory of the Incarnation for human nature and the great dignity found in the share of divine life given through grace. However, it would be tempting to de-emphasize very important teachings such as the infinite gap between nature and super-nature and the abysmal state that the fall left us in (even if it didn't totally corrupt us).

The problem is that translating the faith in this way is CONFUSING. IF THIS IS THE PROJECT, then we are not dealing with any development of doctrine whatsoever, but only a different approach to communicating the same doctrine...hence the project is about a PASTORAL APPROACH RATHER THAN CLARIFICATION OF DOGMA.

In the process however, the dogma is not clarified but presented in a way this is ambiguous. However, the ambiguous presentation is not aimed at changing the faith, but convincing the ill-willed to embrace it. It is not an intention to change the Faith for the sake of the ill-willed, but to avoid over-whelming them and putting them on the defense. In short, it is an attempt to speak to the modern world in its own language, not to modernize the Faith.

Now, my personal opinion is that this project does not seem to have accomplished much, but has caused a lot of problems.

However, I think this is where the rubber hits the road. The SSPX seems to be saying that they were not just doing a bad job at presenting the Faith in modern language (during which they made it sound like they were adopting the modern errors), but that they were actually intending and trying to adopt the modern errors themselves.

The ultimate, concrete explanation of the relationship between 'man' and Jesus Christ who is God, Trinitarian, while human in his nature, is perhaps inexplicable and can only be seen as 'through a glass darkly.'

In addition, the Apostles who saw as clearly as their visions would let them realized limits to finite comprehension. The nature of mystery is always triumphant and humbling to the Catholic mind.

I am surprised at the extent to which the Si Si No No response shows ignorance of the Fathers of the Church and of the Scholastics. One can find "anthropocentric"-sounding texts in many classic authors. The question to ask is not, "Can these statements be reconciled with dogma?," but "How do we understand these statements, admitting they are true?" There is a right and a wrong way to understand the exaltation of man (and its effect on every man) due to the Incarnation. The real problem of Vatican II is that the documents chose to speak in a non-scholastic way that avoided making crucial distinctions, so even if the texts ALLOW an orthodox interpretation, they also ALLOW a heterodox one. There are other examples in ecumenical councils of such ambiguity (think of the aftermath of Ephesus), but the Second Vatican Council should have known better and could have done better with 20 centuries of theological tradition.

Excellent commentary on the situation, I think. Certain leaders in the Church, possibly tired of fighting, tried a different tack in "opening the windows to the world." This approach coupled with the embracing of a less precise theological vocabulary (as noted in citations from other threads on this site) has led to a lot confusion and breakdown in discipline within the Church. As a justification to abandon or deemphasize an "outmoded" Thomism, for example, St. Paul is quoted when he says, "I became all things to all men" (1 Cor. 9:22). But I agree that this approach was too pollyanna. Christ also says that "if the world hates you, it hated me before you" (Jn. 15:18-20; Mt. 10:22). There has been too much of an assumption of good will on the part of the world and the traditional enemies of the Church, and too much of an emphasis on Man and erroneous ways of thinking, to the detriment of the rights of God and loyal Catholics within the fold.

As an example of imprecision, as alluded to in other comments, we encounter an emphasis on the "dignity of the human person" as an absolute and an end in itself. I would argue that this is a Kantian notion and not a Catholic one since said dignity is conditioned insofar as a person is ordered to his ultimate end:

"By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, insofar as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: 'Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them,' and Prov. 11:29: 'The fool shall serve the wise.' Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6)." (St. Thomas Aquinas, ST 2-2.64.2 ad 3)

As Romano Amerio notes, the existence of Hell proves that man's dignity is conditional, viz., inasmuch as he is ordered to God. I.e., if man's dignity is absolute, then it would seem to make God unjust in condemning sinners to Hell.

It is clear that the modern disaster of the Church was not just a result of "wrong tactics".If it was, they would have understood it by now and changed their tactics.But, as the recent popes themselves said, ecumenism, to them has no alternative, they are fully committed to it (in spite of the fact that it has produced no results and that the Conciliar Church crumbles).This should be enough to illustrate the views of the entire conciliar establishment.

The "mutation" from the Church of Ages to the Church of Man was meticulously planned and orchestrated, from before the Council.They very consciously decided to alter the doctrines of the Church into what is now the Conciliar Church, and they know that there is no way back for them. No matter how much we would all like them to, they no longer believe in the same inviolate Catholic Faith. All that they now have are institutions void of the Faith - the "subject-Church". That is why the new priests stray so much in doctrine and in praxis, they no longer know what to believe, they no longer know what they are. Many of them are also victims, as the lay faithful - their heritage, their Faith has been stolen from them, before they even had the chance to know it.

Be sure of it, the Church revolutionaries have chosen their side, no matter what.

We are asked to choose ours - for God or man, for Christ or anti-christ?

Deo gratias, Mons. Lefebvre and the SSPX chose Christ. May we all possess such heroic courage of Faith.

Ecclesia Militans, even if there were some modernists with an explicit agenda, the Council is the work of many bishops. I find it VERY difficult to believe that all, or the majority, of the bishops, when they signed the documents, were positively intending such malice. If they were not, then the non-malicious sense must be taken as the authentic one (even if the passages remain problematic).

"We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church —all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.

That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen."

We should follow the example of saints like Thomas Aquinas who always cite Church authorities in the most charitable and benign way when possible. That being said, I believe the current chaos in the Church is due in part to a disorientation (as explained by Spero above) among members of the Church hierarchy because otherwise, it seems to me one runs perilously close to sedevacantism, which it is my understanding Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX both reject. Attributing malice (i.e., the intent to destroy the Church) to recent popes or the greater part of the council fathers seems tantamount to sedevacantism.

I won't deny that malice could exist on the part of particular members of the heirarchy or certain theologians, but we don't know the interior dispositions of mens' hearts unless they are made manifest either through incontrovertible actions or words. The fact that people, including prominent theologians, are debating these matters (e.g., the controversial teachings in Vatican II) tells me that they are in fact not incontrovertible. We are all trying to preserve our sanity and faith, and deal with the chaos around us. The disorientation thesis seems the best way to save appearances on Catholic principles to me.

All of the preparatory schemas for the documents of the Council, all of them perfectly orthodox, were immediately rejected at the beginning of the Council and replaced by the liberal ones.The liberals did not hijack some of the Council, it was theirs completely, from that moment the orthodox schemas were rejected.

A great number of bishops did not want to sign the ambiguous or apparently heretical documents but they felt compelled, under pressure, and especially after the Pope signed.

The intentions found in the documents are not of that orthodox majority, they are of those liberal designers of the Council, and approved by a liberal pope.

The Council was the beginning of the Calvary of the Church.The foundations for the modernist scandals and false doctrines were placed in the Council texts, so that after the Council the modernist infiltrators could change the face of the Church into their creation, a Church of man.

They have succeded in many things but they will never be able to destroy the Church completely - as long as Tradition lives, the Church is alive.

The end of their hour is near, and so the beginning of the restoration of the Church.

"We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church —all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.

That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen."

THE DECLARATION OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE against modernism, 1974

Excellent! Even in today's hindsight we can see some of the destruction wrought on the Church by VII and PaulVI/Bugnini's "liturgy"; just wait what they have to say in 200 years!

I must agree with Professor Kwasniewski: the question being asked by the Si Si No No editorial is wrongheaded. And the ignorance of the Tradition unconscionable. One need only look at St. Thomas's Summa Contra Gentiles, inter alia, to find statements to the effect that God's providence governs man and the angels for their own sake and all other things for their sake. Any notion that this somehow militates against God as the one ultimate End of all things is hopelessly confused: it is both/and, not either/or. It is in virtue of the special way in which intellectual beings have God as their end that God governs them for their own sake. Men are persons, and therefore willed for their own sake, precisely because that is a necessary part of their attaining their end, viz., beholding God face to face.